Atheism and humanism are completely contradictory

Author: Conservallectual

Posts

Total: 1,052
#181
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tarik

-> @Tarik
Exactly so to tie this back to our discussion a fact is something that can be proven, so for arguments sake if love is what gets you into heaven then that’s the proof in the pudding.
If love gets you into heaven why is the proof in the pudding? Shouldn’t heaven be the proof?

Indeed, hence why I included heaven as a part of my diatribe.
Let’s recap what you believe: Love is what gets you into Heaven, heaven is part of your diatribe. But the proof is in the pudding. So why serve diatribe with pudding?
#182
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
The weather is what it is regardless of what anyone thinks about it.
And Morality is what it is regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

And once you’ve done that, explain how getting into heaven is an objective basis for morality.
Because everybody loves heaven.
#183
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
you don't have to ADOPT my perspective, but you do need to at least acknowledge that it exists and is valid
Some folks are just deliberately dishonest so that’s not exactly true.
#184
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
And once you’ve done that, explain how getting into heaven is an objective basis for morality.
Because everybody loves heaven.
Even if that were true, that still wouldn’t make it objective.

You ignored the rest of my post, I take that as a sign that you realize you can’t substantiate your position, or you’ve quietly changed it. Glad I could be of service.
#185
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
Even if that were true, that still wouldn’t make it objective.
How so? Care to “substantiate this position”.

You ignored the rest of my post
I edited it previously, feel free to take a look.
#186
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Some folks are just deliberately dishonest so that’s not exactly true.
(1) you can't possibly know that (because the internal process of other people is beyond your epistemological limits)

(2) negatively characterizing the MOTIVES of your conversation partner is a text-book AD HOMINEM ATTACK

(3) if you are personally convinced that your conversation partner is arguing in BAD FAITH, then abandon the conversation
#187
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tarik
--> @Double_R
The weather is what it is regardless of what anyone thinks about it.
And Morality is what it is regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

And once you’ve done that, explain how getting into heaven is an objective basis for morality.
Because everybody loves heaven.

-> @Tarik
Exactly so to tie this back to our discussion a fact is something that can be proven, so for arguments sake if love is what gets you into heaven then that’s the proof in the pudding.
If love gets you into heaven why is the proof in the pudding? Shouldn’t heaven be the proof?

Indeed, hence why I included heaven as a part of my diatribe.
Let’s recap what you believe: Love is what gets you into Heaven, heaven is part of your diatribe. But the proof is in the pudding. So why serve diatribe with pudding?

#188
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
How so? Care to “substantiate this position”.
Because objectivity means not subject to opinion. So everyone sharing the same opinion is irrelevant.
#189
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
-> @Tarik
How so? Care to “substantiate this position”.
Because objectivity means not subject to opinion. So everyone sharing the same opinion is irrelevant.
Are you saying when people agree and share the same opinion they become irrelevant?

#190
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Are you saying when people agree and share the same opinion they become irrelevant?
Sums up the atheists view on theists about as accurately as you can.
#191
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
Because objectivity means not subject to opinion. So everyone sharing the same opinion is irrelevant.
Are you saying when people agree and share the same opinion they become irrelevant?
more specifically, everyone sharing the same opinion on something does not make that shared opinion "objective"

it makes that widely shared opinion "intersubjective"

which is not the same as "objective"

anyone claiming to have an "objective opinion" is confused about the definitions of "objective" and "opinion"

because these terms are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
#192
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Shila
Because objectivity means not subject to opinion. So everyone sharing the same opinion is irrelevant.
Are you saying when people agree and share the same opinion they become irrelevant?
Please explain how you came to this understanding of what I said. 
#193
Vici
Vici's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 333
2
4
7
Vici's avatar
Vici
2
4
7
Atheism and humanism are completely contradictory


atheism and reality is contradictory 

#194
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
(1) you can't possibly know that (because the internal process of other people is beyond your epistemological limits)
You don’t need to know someone’s internal process to detect dishonesty, it’s as simple as reading what they say and if you understand semantics then there’s nothing more to it.

negatively characterizing the MOTIVES of your conversation partner is a text-book AD HOMINEM ATTACK
Not if there motives negatively influence there dialogue.

if you are personally convinced that your conversation partner is arguing in BAD FAITH, then abandon the conversation
If I wanted your advice on how to interact with people I would’ve asked for it.

#195
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
Because objectivity means not subject to opinion. So everyone sharing the same opinion is irrelevant.
So what does morality mean?
#196
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
negatively characterizing the MOTIVES of your conversation partner is a text-book AD HOMINEM ATTACK
Not if there motives negatively influence there dialogue.
there is nothing in the definition of AD HOMINEM ATTACK

that makes exceptions for "dialogue influence"
#197
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Vici
atheism and reality is contradictory 
please explain
#198
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
So what does morality mean?
Morality is a system by which we judge the actions of ourselves and others.
#199
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
there is nothing in the definition of AD HOMINEM ATTACK

that makes exceptions for "dialogue influence"
In the words of you, “please link to” AD HOMINEM ATTACK.

#200
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
And once you’ve done that, explain how getting into heaven is an objective basis for morality.
Because only moral people can get into it, is this a trick question?

Morality is a system by which we judge the actions of ourselves and others.
That’s a self refuting definition when you take into account the diametrically opposed judgements people have regarding the same action, I said something similar here https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7916/post-links/341481
#201
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
In the words of you, “please link to” AD HOMINEM ATTACK.
"Some folks are just deliberately dishonest" is an example of,

#202
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source but for sake of the discussion I’ll bite anyway, it says

“Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself.”

Operative words being “substance of the argument” now explain to me how that’s much different from the influence of the dialogue?
#203
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
--> @Shila
Because objectivity means not subject to opinion. So everyone sharing the same opinion is irrelevant.
Are you saying when people agree and share the same opinion they become irrelevant?
Please explain how you came to this understanding of what I said
I simply took what you said which was “everyone sharing the same opinion is irrelevant.”

Double_R wrote: Because objectivity means not subject to opinion. So everyone sharing the same opinion is irrelevant. Post# 188.
#204
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Operative words being “substance of the argument” now explain to me how that’s much different from the influence of the dialogue?
the argument presented

and the person who is speaking

are two different things

calling someone a liar, for example

attacks the speaker

without addressing the argument presented

this is an ad hominem attack
#205
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
Double_R wrote: Because objectivity means not subject to opinion. So everyone sharing the same opinion is irrelevant [to the determination of how "objective" it might or might not be]. Post# 188.
#206
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
--> @Shila
Double_R wrote: Because objectivity means not subject to opinion. So everyone sharing the same opinion is irrelevant [to the determination of how "objective" it might or might not be]. Post# 188.
Double_R wrote: Because objectivity means not subject to opinion. So everyone sharing the same opinion is irrelevant. Post# 188.

Double_R said: when people agree and share the same opinion they become irrelevant.
#207
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL

calling someone a liar, for example

attacks the speaker

without addressing the argument presented
Not if your calling them a liar based on the conflicting arguments they present, we’ve been over this already.

#208
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Not if your calling them a liar based on the conflicting arguments they present, we’ve been over this already.
pointing out apparent conflicts in someone's argument should always be appreciated

presupposing that these apparent conflicts are the result of deliberate deception is an ad hominem attack
#209
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
presupposing that these apparent conflicts are the result of deliberate deception is an ad hominem attack
Not it’s not, anything that conflicts with the truth is literally the definition of deliberate deception.
#210
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Not it’s not, anything that conflicts with the truth is literally the definition of deliberate deception.
it could be either an honest oversight

or a misinterpretation on your part